Why are conspiracy theorists so dumb?
- Thread starter loquacious
- Start date
- Status
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
If i where u guys id run to my front yard and get rid of all the rocks.or things that look like rocks.u cnt run from your BIG BROTHER. Their always watching
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Yeah that's not a slanted article at all
All I hear is bahhhh... bahhhh..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Now that's a persuading argument if I've ever heard one..
This is why teachers assign homework and why people like you never do it...
Examples;
"The Lead Vaccine Developer Comes Clean So She Can “Sleep At Night”: Gardasil And Cervarix Don’t Work, Are Dangerous, And Weren’t Tested"
Sensationalist headline that is totally false
Development history
The research that led to the development of the vaccine began in the 1980s by groups at the University of Rochester, Georgetown University, and the US National Cancer Institute (NCI). In 1991, Australian investigators Jian Zhou and Ian Frazer at The University of Queensland found a way to form non-infectious virus-like particles (VLP), which could also strongly activate the immune system. However, these VLPs assembled poorly and did not have the same structure as infectious HPV. In 1993, a laboratory at the US National Cancer Institute was able to generate HPV16 VLPs that were morphologically correct. These VLPs were the basis for the HPV16 component of the Gardasil vaccine. Upon commercialization of the vaccine, disputes involving intellectual property ownership arose between the various groups that had played a role in its development.
Clinical trials
Merck & Co. conducted a Phase III study named Females United to Unilaterally Reduce Endo/Ectocervical Disease (FUTURE II). This clinical trial was a randomized double-blind study with one controlled placebo group and one vaccination group. Over 12,000 women aged 16–26 from thirteen countries participated in the study. Each woman was injected with either Gardasil or a placebo on day 1, month 2, and month 6. In total, 6,082 women were given Gardasil and 6,075 received the placebo. Subjects in the vaccine group had a significantly lower occurrence of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia related to HPV-16 or HPV-18 than did those in the placebo group. On February 27, 2006, the independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended the clinical trials be terminated on ethical grounds, so that young women on placebo could receive Gardasil. Merck tested the vaccine in several hundred 11- and 12-year-old girls.
Safety
As of February 2009, 40 million doses of Gardasil had been distributed worldwide. The vaccine was tested in thousands of females (ages 9 to 26). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) consider the vaccine to be safe. It does not contain mercury, thiomersal, live viruses or dead viruses, only virus-like particles, which cannot reproduce in the human body.
It also doesn't quote in the article where Harper claims she came forward so she can "sleep at night", that's simply bad reporting, either directly quote her or change the title of the article.
The ironic thing is that while you think people who believe vaccines save lives are sheep, you are actively perpetuating the opposite end of that equation, complete ignorance.
Now are you almost done making an ass of yourself or should we try for another 60 pages?
The lead vaccine developer comes clean and you sit here and pretend like that means nothing. Go get your vaccines, take your meds, eat gmo's, and believe everything the mainstream media and government tell you. It's not worth the damage to my computer keys to type responses to people who have no common sense or ability to think for themselves. By the way, where'd you get your info? This is what I found: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/medical-study-confirms-gardasil-dangers-exposed-by-judicial-watch/ It's a vaccine made to prevent against cervical cancer caused by HPV, even though within two years, over 90% of HPV infections heal by themselves.
Also, watch the latest video I posted, it shows how the pharmaceutical industry conducts tests on certain drugs and if say 10 of them prove the drug is ineffective, but 1 says it works, they throw away those 10 studies and use the one to support their claims that it works. And the presentation is done by a doctor who admittedly realized that he was misled into believing fraudulent studies.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"Manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Merck, Gardasil is promoted as a miracle shot that can prevent certain strains of cervical cancer caused by Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Instead it’s been linked to thousands of debilitating side effects, according to the government’s own daunting statistics, exposed in the course of JW’s ongoing probe."
"The study lists the following Gardasil side effects: “Death, convulsions, paraesthesia, paralysis, Guillain–Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, facial palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms and cervical cancers.”"
Can you explain in your own words without linking to another article how Gardasil has been linked to such side effects and how they missed them during trials?
"The study lists the following Gardasil side effects: “Death, convulsions, paraesthesia, paralysis, Guillain–Barre syndrome, transverse myelitis, facial palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms and cervical cancers.”"
Can you explain in your own words without linking to another article how Gardasil has been linked to such side effects and how they missed them during trials?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I must have missed where she "came clean", as I said, the article you posted doesn't quote her saying anything close to that
1.) Where is your source? 2.) I've already provided evidence that the pharmaceutical industry dismisses all the studies that prove their drugs are ineffective or cause debilitating side effects and instead cherry pick the one or very few that agree with what they want. 3.) She said "I came away from the talk with the perception that the risk of adverse side effects is so much greater than the risk of cervical cancer, I couldn’t help but question why we need the vaccine at all.”
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
My source for what?
How has Gardasil been linked to those side effects? Can you tell me in your own words, I'm not interested in reading the opinions of a team of people who wrote it, I'm interested in your opinion.
Why didn't she come to that conclusion during testing?
How has Gardasil been linked to those side effects? Can you tell me in your own words, I'm not interested in reading the opinions of a team of people who wrote it, I'm interested in your opinion.
Why didn't she come to that conclusion during testing?
How could I possibly, in my own words, explain without providing evidence (links) that Gardasil has been linked to those side effects? That doesn't even make sense. Are you questioning why I gave you links to support what I'm saying? And the source that shows that Gardasil is safe and effective.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I don't think you yourself understand how anything inside Gardasil actually causes the symptoms you are claiming it causes, I am asking you to explain the connection between the drug and the symptoms without citing someone elses explanation
How is this my responsibility? That has already been done by the people who are experts in this field and have done the studies. It's also evidenced by all the adverse effects and reports. I didn't conduct the research, I'm just posting it and the evidence along with it. The point isn't HOW it all happens, it's the fact that it DOES happen.
So people can only talk about the side effects of medicine if they have a deep understanding of the medical science involved? This whole debate aside, that makes no sense ...
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That's the thing, how do you know it's actually happening unless you know how it actually happens? How do you know you're not simply buying into and perpetuating someone else's agenda? After all, there are many more people on the side of vaccines than are against them, so using your own logic, the rational thing to believe would be the many more experts supporting vaccines, wouldn't it?
How do you know the vaccine is responsible for the side effects and how would something like this be missed during clinical trials?
outdoorbrah
New Member
Why are people who make sweeping generalizations so dumb?
- Status